About models, when you see them come into casting, fresh from the crush of the subway, no makeup, a Starbucks cup in their hands, they are gangly and plain in jeans and a hoodie. You wouldn't give them a second look on the street. But when you look, really look, you see the jaw and chin, the cheekbones and eyes and its there. Makeup hair and wardrobe is transformative, and the good ones can act, are intelligent, have a charisma that is magnetic. I swear my wife became an MUA to keep an eye on me.

There is a process of creation among the AD, Stylist, model, shooter and MUA. It starts as one thing and changes with all the input from everyone involved. It's a far more creative process that putting a pretty girl in front of a camera with lights.

Can't compare: the photographer working with a model is creating something in tandem with her; they make something happen that does not really exist in life. That this is so can be seen if you know any of those girls. In reality, they can even be downright unattractive but, in a photograph, they are given another beautiful dimension that comes from that collaboration. This means that the act of working together is the act of creation. The landscape shooter can't do that: he has to wait for whatever God serves up.

The 'fashion' shooter and his girl can do it anywhere, anytime. Doesn't that tell you something?

As for having a go - no, I don't believe that you are. It's just a matter of thinking about it more deeply and not adopting a defensive stance for a specific, and probably personal genre.

Yes, and that's my point: you make something out of nothing more than the desires burning away in your heart and mind. The traditional blank page or canvas comes to life.

And that's the kick that nothing else in photography can replace for those of us with the bug; it never really goes away, even though the clients might and probably always will. But the desire lingers long. Maybe satisfying, or at least nourishing that drive a little bit, is what the Web and agency/snapper sites were made for?

Additionally, I never could tell if a model had it or not until I actually used her; I could usually see it in index cards, but from simply meeting somebody in the flesh, no way. If anything, that used to make me enthusiastically ready for disappointment. And pretty didn't really guarantee anything at all, which always surprised most people who hadn't done this stuff...

About models, when you see them come into casting, fresh from the crush of the subway, no makeup, a Starbucks cup in their hands, they are gangly and plain in jeans and a hoodie. You wouldn't give them a second look on the street. But when you look, really look, you see the jaw and chin, the cheekbones and eyes and its there. Makeup hair and wardrobe is transformative, and the good ones can act, are intelligent, have a charisma that is magnetic. I swear my wife became an MUA to keep an eye on me.

There is a process of creation among the AD, Stylist, model, shooter and MUA. It starts as one thing and changes with all the input from everyone involved. It's a far more creative process that putting a pretty girl in front of a camera with lights.

I would liken a good model to a good actor/actress, it's all about expressing feelings and the honesty of that expression. I will never forget this one model I shot (You saw her TMARK when I posted one of her photos here). She was 14/15 years old, it was her first shoot and she was being extremely difficult, even crying at one point. I felt bad and ended the shoot early, but when I saw the photos on my computer the day after I immediately said "this girl is going to be huge". The honesty and vulnerability in her expression was just shining through so brightly it was blinding. In fact, a couple of months later she signed with IMG NY and has since had a meteoric career, with campaigns for brands like Prada, been in pretty much every major fashion magazine in the world and on the cover of many of them, and shot by the likes of Steven Meisel. I agree with you TMARK that fashion photography is probably one of the most difficult and creative photographic discipline out there. It's a collaborative effort between the photographer, stylist, MUA, and the models, and only when all of those parts come together do you get art. If you think (editorial) fashion is about putting a pretty girl in front of a lens and that's it then you don't know what you're talking about.

I would liken a good model to a good actor/actress, it's all about expressing feelings and the honesty of that expression. I will never forget this one model I shot (You saw her TMARK when I posted one of her photos here). She was 14/15 years old, it was her first shoot and she was being extremely difficult, even crying at one point. I felt bad and ended the shoot early, but when I saw the photos on my computer the day after I immediately said "this girl is going to be huge". The honesty and vulnerability in her expression was just shining through so brightly it was blinding. In fact, a couple of months later she signed with IMG NY and has since had a meteoric career, with campaigns for brands like Prada, been in pretty much every major fashion magazine in the world and on the cover of many of them, and shot by the likes of Steven Meisel. I agree with you TMARK that fashion photography is probably one of the most difficult and creative photographic discipline out there. It's a collaborative effort between the photographer, stylist, MUA, and the models, and only when all of those parts come together do you get art. If you think (editorial) fashion is about putting a pretty girl in front of a lens and that's it then you don't know what you're talking about.

I appreciate the insights from Rob C, TMARK and amsp about working with models and other professionals on fashion/glamour shots (apologies if my terminology is wrong). The degree of collaboration with other talents would seem to be unique in photography and I can imagine how the experience would be addictive. I would still argue, though, that all photography, and not just landscape, involves an element of what Rob called collaboration with god. Without something out there that is given and that is worth photographing, whether it is a model or a mountain, why bother removing your lens cap? Of course it isn't simply given - it is also found, created, imagined - and that is also true whether it is a model or a mountain.

I appreciate the insights from Rob C, TMARK and amsp about working with models and other professionals on fashion/glamour shots (apologies if my terminology is wrong). The degree of collaboration with other talents would seem to be unique in photography and I can imagine how the experience would be addictive. I would still argue, though, that all photography, and not just landscape, involves an element of what Rob called collaboration with god. Without something out there that is given and that is worth photographing, whether it is a model or a mountain, why bother removing your lens cap? Of course it isn't simply given - it is also found, created, imagined - and that is also true whether it is a model or a mountain.

On a similar note I find it rather funny how there are endless claims of MF skin tones compared to even the newest Canon or Nikon skin tones.Skin tomes are really far more about two other things. Casting the right model with wonderful skin tones that can be beautifully reproduced by film or digitaland then lighting. Keeping the damn MUA under control is also part of that.

The 2013 will be the Pentax year. The new camera will show other companies what a model refresh is about besides changing the name on the camera itself and will preserve the price pretty close to what the 645D cost at launch. Their new ultra wide zoom lens will make a compelling alternative to other companies 28mm and 35mm with a lot more flexibility. Thousands of used "original" 645D coming from Japan at 4K to 5K will put enormous pressure on the value of other brands used MF cameras and will hinder dealers ability to offer good upgrade deals. Close to year's end or earlier in 2014 there will be two more state of the art zooms that will make the system even more appealing. The 2015 will be mostly the year of the new primes.

Of course that some will "need" exactly 80 Mp, or exactly a certain piece of software, or tethering via Fireware, or a more potent brand name in the Western world than Pentax on their cameras, or even no incentive to switch from a system that works for them but for others there will be an age of great opportunity to use a camera with a greater than 36x24mm sensor in ways never possible before and build a system of one camera and 3 or 4 brand new designed for digital lenses for the same price as other companies charge for one camera+back.

A good MUA knows that liquid base is for local HD TV news and that makeup in regards to skin needs to be transparent, and must blend naturally with the subjects skin, such that the line of demarcation is natural and doesn't look like a sun burn. AN MUA should contour, and and only ever paint eyes, lips and for runway, cheeks. The best MUA's I've worked with are painters by training.

My wife was GOOD. After a few shoots with me she was doing runway for fall fashion week, then for S/S fashion week was the key MUA for some smaller labels. She was the MUA for shoots I wish I had, working with many big name editorial shooters. I was jealous, of course! She used to paint, and that is how she approached it. Then we had kids and she hasn't worked since, except for me.

But I digress. My point is this: a good MUA is more valuable to a photograph than a good MFD. I'd shoot an editorial with a real stylist, a good MUA, adequate budget for lighting and sets and location with a Kodak disk camera if I had to. What goes in front of the camera and what goes on right behind the camera is what is important. The technical aspects and lens camera choice influence aesthetics. So use what ever helps you conceptually, be it film, digi, 35mm digi, crop frame, disc camera. Just remember its all to serve the photograph.

On a similar note I find it rather funny how there are endless claims of MF skin tones compared to even the newest Canon or Nikon skin tones.Skin tomes are really far more about two other things. Casting the right model with wonderful skin tones that can be beautifully reproduced by film or digitaland then lighting. Keeping the damn MUA under control is also part of that.